Created attachment 416288[details]
Spec file attached
Attaching the spec file.
Currently there are two issues
1) cp: cannot stat `LICENSE': No such file or directory
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.8BH8HY (%doc)
2) In the %files section, permissions for hslogger binary is being modified. However, the binary is not created. I ran cabal install to confirm this.
For 1) the license file needs to be added to the sources. I am not sure how to proceed with this. Perhaps I can contact the source maintainer.
For 2) the line that tries to modify the permission has been removed.

You need to provide an SRPM.
If you are not currently a packager (I couldn't find you in the packager group, but might not have been looking for the right email address) you need to block on FE-NEEDSPONSOR.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

Hi Lakshmi,
do you want to maintain hslogger in Fedora?
I am afraid that is a bit more complicated than running cabal2spec.
Please start here if you want to become a maintainer:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
If you study that page and linked material I guess you can answer your own question above.

I am offering to sponsor Lakshmi for this review.
I took a quick look at the .spec file and basically looks ok.
Can you add a changelog entry to document the changes you made
relative to cabal2spec (you can also use cabal2spec-diff for that).

Sorry for the long pause.
The changelog must be in your name (see other .spec files for examples).
The initial "Fedora Haskell SIG" entry is just a seed to show
that the file was generated by cabal2spec.
I am afraid cabal2spec is now 0.22.2 in F14.
It would be better if you could update the spec.
I will endeavour to respond faster from now. :)

(In reply to comment #19)
> Looks pretty good. Only problem I see now so far is that you
> really need to include COPYING too not just COPYRIGHT.
One way to do that would be to copy it into the doc dir for ghc-hslogger
which you might need to create in %install - alternatively you
could append COPYRIGHT to the ghc-hslogger.files file list.

This is another approach (going by your first suggestion). Under %install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%ghc_lib_install
cp COPYING ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}
echo "%doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/COPYING" >> ghc-hslogger.files
Using this approach, I didn't have to explicitly mention COPYRIGHT in the %doc directive. I tried to put only %doc COPYING. But this deleted the doc/ghc-hslogger-1.1.0 directory and COPYRIGHT got deleted as well. My understanding is that cabal install put the COPYRIGHT file into the directory in the first place and the final stage of packaging was unable to find COPYRIGHT.

%doc is magic when just specifying files in the tarball. Also, explicitly mentioning %doc on %{_mandir} or %{_docdir} is unnecessary since it's implicit to RPM. Here's what I'd do:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%ghc_lib_install
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}
install -p COPYING ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/COPYING
The directory is already owned through %doc commands make the directory owned and everything in it is then brought in through that. It's a little messy :( .

Here is the review:
+:ok, NA: not applicable
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint output
ghc-hslogger.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ghc-hslogger.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
ghc-hslogger.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/hslogger-1.1.0/libHShslogger-1.1.0-ghc6.12.1.so
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
ghc-hslogger-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ghc-hslogger-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-hslogger-devel
ghc-hslogger-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-hslogger-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/hslogger-1.1.0/libHShslogger-1.1.0_p.a
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
There are ok.
[+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name}
[+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Licensing Guidelines
Note if in the future you want to also package hslogger4j
then ASL 2.0 should be added to the license field.
[+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license.
[+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English and be legible.
[+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release
8039e079338dae19e1273bbd73332014 hslogger-1.1.0.tar.gz
[+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch
[+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations
[NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[NA] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec.
[NA] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2466460
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
Package is APPROVED.

ghc-hslogger-1.1.0-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update ghc-hslogger'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-hslogger-1.1.0-3.fc14

For f13 and f12, ghc-rpm-macros 0.8.1 is not available as an update. Should I create a spec file for hslogger with the appropriate versions of ghc-rpm-macros (and cabal2spec)? In that case, I will keep the spec files ready.

hslogger requires mtl but it is not available in F12.
F13 build works fine after modifying the BR to 0.7.0.
Couple of doubts:
1) Since the spec file will have a change, I would bump the release number. This means that F13 will end up with ghc-hslogger-1.1.0-4 and rawhide will have 1.1.0-3. Is that acceptable?
2) Should I submit the spec file for another review or can I go ahead and apply for Package change request?

(In reply to comment #49)
> hslogger requires mtl but it is not available in F12.
mtl is part of ghc-6.10.4 so you can just the dep.
Sorry I didn't bother to add the provides to ghc there...
> F13 build works fine after modifying the BR to 0.7.0.
> Couple of doubts:
> 1) Since the spec file will have a change, I would bump the release number.
> This means that F13 will end up with ghc-hslogger-1.1.0-4 and rawhide will have
> 1.1.0-3. Is that acceptable?
No that is not acceptable.
Either don't bump (I haven't) or bump after %{?dist}: eg 3%{?dist}.1
> 2) Should I submit the spec file for another review or can I go ahead and apply
> for Package change request?
No review needed: it is standard package maintainer work.
Feel free to use 0.7.0 also in newer branches if it is
easier for you. I may well lower the version in the next
cabal2spec.

(In reply to comment #52)
> I tried building hslogger in f12 but the build did not go through. There was an
> error when haddock started to parse the source files.
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2513743
>
> For now, I would raise a package change request for f13.
Sure that is just fine.
Hmm maybe need an older hslogger for ghc-6.10.4 then, but maybe not worth worrying about until something needs it, which may well not happen before F12 goes EOL.